Climate Change has run its course@

[skookerasbil]

Holy crap... evidently the author has been checking in on the skeptics threads in the Environment section of the USMB!!

"All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Like the author says, the message has clearly lost all of its vitality. As he says, it's on "life support".

For a few years in here now I have been posing the question, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"
Never get a single response from a climate crusader. .

@www.whosnotwinning.com

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."

If policy makers are never going to care, "climate science" is nothing more than a hobby for dwellers of the neter-regions of the internet s0n!!

In poll after poll Climate change are normally near or at the very BOTTOM of the poll list of concerns. The rational public knows it is not a big deal which is why the Media and warmists behave they way they do these days, lie and distort events that doesn't support their religion.

Indeed....unlike the climate change bozos, most people have real responsibilities in life so have waaasaay more shit to be concerned about!! And yes, it's called rational thought. As I have said before, these climate crusaders, while very intelligent, have issues with thought processing. I cant help thrm.

 

[Coyote]

The grasshoppers played while the ants worked. Climate change is affecting sea levels and coastal areas. You can pretend it isn’t relevant, most people haven’t really felt the effects yet, but that is pretty short sight ed.

 

[skookerasbil]

The grasshoppers played while the ants worked. Climate change is affecting sea levels and coastal areas. You can pretend it isn’t relevant, most people haven’t really felt the effects yet, but that is pretty short sight ed.

A heartfelt sentiment I'm sure. Lots of people have heartfelt sentiments about stuff though. A group of mother's in my neighborhood are part of MADD. Spend alot of time urging community members to educate on the dangers of drinking and driving. But few heed their call. Millions of people have been warned about the clear link between smoking and cancer....doesnt stop their behavior. In both of the above cases the data is clear and beyond reproach on the risks yet doesn't change the behavior.

So scientists working in the climate change industry, come along with projections on the future based on computer models. C'mon now....sure lots of people take note for the past two decades but very little has changed and people's behavior towards climate change. People have displayed zero propensity for wanting to open their wallet to fight climate change..... they are just not that interested. Beyond what the scientists are saying there is just nothing that compelling out there to make them change their behavior. What? Seeing the sea has risen 3mm? C'mon now....... thousands and thousands of USMB members but very few come into the Environment forum year after year. The sentiment to do something about climate change is just not that prominent.... it's just not on most people's radar.

So saying that climate change has run its course is no stretch. The folks have become less interested year after year since the days of the Al Gore movie.... every poll on voter concerns confirms it. Congress certainly doesn't have to give a shit about it because the constituents could not be more apathetic. Why? Because the constituents clearly have far more pressing concerns.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Earth is billions of years old.

It goes through changes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

 

[SSDD]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

Got the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Didn't think so...but do show us what passes for evidence in that head of yours.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

Yawn...…….Zzz….

 

[Wyatt earp]

The grasshoppers played while the ants worked. Climate change is affecting sea levels and coastal areas. You can pretend it isn’t relevant, most people haven’t really felt the effects yet, but that is pretty short sight ed.

Since when hasn't it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

We have had it before happen even faster then this...

The great Sahara desert turned tropical to dry in a blink of an eye

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Have they all shut down their coal fired power plants ?

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

Compared to what? The cheapest is probably natural gas which emits carbon dioxide. The aforementioned greenhouse gas that is causing global warming. Solar is cheap, but inefficient and problematic. I have two huge panels I use to charge a battery pack for hurricane Season. It takes a full day to keep a simple thermoelectric cooler running for 24 hours. If it is cloudy, I lose energy and the cooler stops before the sun is up again.

I could cover the entire roof and run the house during the day, but come night? Out of luck.

Far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to buy a generator for the days we are without power from storms.

Ever hear of batteries?

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

We have had it before happen even faster then this...

The great Sahara desert turned tropical to dry in a blink of an eye

Link me to an article that states the whole of the Sahara went dry in a few centuries.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

Compared to what? The cheapest is probably natural gas which emits carbon dioxide. The aforementioned greenhouse gas that is causing global warming. Solar is cheap, but inefficient and problematic. I have two huge panels I use to charge a battery pack for hurricane Season. It takes a full day to keep a simple thermoelectric cooler running for 24 hours. If it is cloudy, I lose energy and the cooler stops before the sun is up again.

I could cover the entire roof and run the house during the day, but come night? Out of luck.

Far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to buy a generator for the days we are without power from storms.

Ever hear of batteries?

Yeah they lose their charge...


Make me a battery that can run a chain saw for hours, then you got a deal.

 

[Old Rocks]

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives,

The bullshit runs deep with this moron...

Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather Events? | Science | Smithsonian

"
Though they couldn’t prove that global warming had “caused” the scorcher, the scientists did assert that warming from human emissions had doubled the risk of extreme weather events. Published in Nature, their first-of-its-kind study launched the new field of “attribution science,” which uses observations and models to tease apart the factors that lead to extreme climatic events.

In the years since, better models and more data have helped climate scientists get much better at predicting extreme weather. But how confidently can scientists attribute these extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change? Will they ever be able to definitively say that our emissions caused a specific drought, tornado or heat wave?"


Until a Computational Fluid Dynamic model is employed with empirical verification, there is no science which can prove causation.

Now Silly Billy, here is the figures for events;

These 5 charts explore the human impact on extreme weather

 

[Old Rocks]

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

Compared to what? The cheapest is probably natural gas which emits carbon dioxide. The aforementioned greenhouse gas that is causing global warming. Solar is cheap, but inefficient and problematic. I have two huge panels I use to charge a battery pack for hurricane Season. It takes a full day to keep a simple thermoelectric cooler running for 24 hours. If it is cloudy, I lose energy and the cooler stops before the sun is up again.

I could cover the entire roof and run the house during the day, but come night? Out of luck.

Far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to buy a generator for the days we are without power from storms.

Ever hear of batteries?

Yeah they lose their charge...


Make me a battery that can run a chain saw for hours, then you got a deal.

I have ran power saws. Can't remember ever running one for an hour without having to put in more gas. We have battery powered tools at work, when a battery gets low, we pull another battery out of the charger, and plug the low one in.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth is billions of years old.

It goes through changes.

Many chemicals are good for us, so it cannot hurt to have a gram or two of potassium cyanide, now can it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

We have had it before happen even faster then this...

The great Sahara desert turned tropical to dry in a blink of an eye

LINK?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

Compared to what? The cheapest is probably natural gas which emits carbon dioxide. The aforementioned greenhouse gas that is causing global warming. Solar is cheap, but inefficient and problematic. I have two huge panels I use to charge a battery pack for hurricane Season. It takes a full day to keep a simple thermoelectric cooler running for 24 hours. If it is cloudy, I lose energy and the cooler stops before the sun is up again.

I could cover the entire roof and run the house during the day, but come night? Out of luck.

Far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to buy a generator for the days we are without power from storms.

Ever hear of batteries?

Yeah they lose their charge...


Make me a battery that can run a chain saw for hours, then you got a deal.

I have ran power saws. Can't remember ever running one for an hour without having to put in more gas. We have battery powered tools at work, when a battery gets low, we pull another battery out of the charger, and plug the low one in.

I never seen a battery operated one.

God I love chain saws ..going back to work to toss it around again..


Peace out, old rocks..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

We have had it before happen even faster then this...

The great Sahara desert turned tropical to dry in a blink of an eye

LINK?

Don't play dumb I linked it before
. gotta go back to work

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Of course, someone of reasonable intelligence realizes that there are drivers that create climate change. And the driver in the present rapid climate change is the very rapid buildup of GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

We have had it before happen even faster then this...

The great Sahara desert turned tropical to dry in a blink of an eye

In a finding that may help scientists better predict the pace of climate change, research published in Science shows how the Sahara Desert, a region as big as the U.S. that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea across northern Africa, went from bountiful to bone-dry over a period of several thousand years.

From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry

I think that these people know more about that than you do.